Â鶹´«Ã½

Despite representing the majority of Â鶹´«Ã½¡¯s operational contexts, MICs accounted for only 34 percent of its total funding over the period 2019¨C2024. The synthesis concludes that: 

• The category of MICs is too broad to inform programming effectively. However, upper-middle-income countries share characteristics that make them particularly distinct within this broader group; 
• The absence of a clear rationale for Â鶹´«Ã½¡¯s engagement in such settings has constrained its strategic positioning;  
• Â鶹´«Ã½ could better articulate its strategies and programme offer particularly in MICs hosting refugees and internally displaced persons, and assisting irregular migrants; in MICs where it does not target direct beneficiaries; and in MICs transitioning out of crisis.  

The main elements of strengths identified in the evaluations are: 

• Â鶹´«Ã½'s increasingly diversified role and programme offer in MICs, while maintaining consolidated service delivery and emergency response functions; 
• Â鶹´«Ã½¡¯s adaptive capacity to respond to government requests and pivot towards crisis response.  

Evidence of key contributions by Â鶹´«Ã½ in MICs was found in: strengthened food security and nutrition systems; expanded social protection during crises; improved policy frameworks; enhanced disaster preparedness; gender-inclusive economic opportunities; and improved social cohesion and refugee integration into national systems.  

Challenges and missed opportunities in MICs were noted in: 

• Navigating uncertain financing prospects when countries move from low to middle-income status; 
• Moving ¡®upstream¡¯ from small-scale, single initiatives and adopting a coherent approach to programming and partnerships, considering the vulnerability to piecemeal donor funding;  
• Capturing and conveying Â鶹´«Ã½¡¯s added value and contributions to national systems and capacities.